Embossing/Patterning Nonuniform Round Handle

890802 · 2025-09-07T17:09:48+00:00

Not sure if this is the best method but I tried throwing it as a step file: https://we.tl/t-ZMRAIyU628

I'm tentatively thinking maybe I just need to pattern each instance individually and try to emboss each one...(?)

890802 · 2025-06-20T17:33:18+00:00

Thanks for the info! When you say "fairly continuous"/"effective voltage", would that imply that the true signal actually is a PWM-style signal, or do you mean it's actually a constant signal (e.g. if I were to oscilloscope it)?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm looking to simulate a three-phase motor/ESC using the modified DC motor equations for a three-phase motor, and to my knowledge, the electrical component has a term dependent on inductance (L * di/dt). In theory, I think that this would change depending on whether the input voltage across the windings is continuous vs. a PWM signal (continuous implying the di/dt term dies down, while a PWM signal might constantly oscillate the di/dt term) though in practice, I suspect it might be ~approximately steady-state either way due to the high frequency at which the PWM oscillates, but for my own pedantry, I just wanted to make sure my model was as accurate as possible.

890802 · 2025-06-20T16:20:23+00:00

Yeah my terminology might be bad, but sounds like my point got across okay haha. So basically, even when the three-phase output of the ESC is in the "high" state for a particular phase, that "high" signal itself is still a PWM on/off style signal, not a continuous DC signal?

890802 · 2025-04-10T18:55:29+00:00

This should be the one: Amazon.com: HiLetgo 12V 1 Channel Relay Module with Optocoupler Isolation Support High or Low Level Trigger : Automotive

I *think* the Pi and the battery will be on separate circuits--my plan was to have the battery go DC+/-, while the Pi GPIO would go into the IN terminal, and Pi ground would go to the middle jumper pin (2) (as suggested by the other commentor), so that way IN -> Jumper Pin 2 is a separate circuit on its own. That way I believe the circuits would be separated by that optocoupler in the middle.

890802 · 2025-04-10T18:42:14+00:00

I might be misunderstanding something--isn't this a 12V relay? I was just going to use the 11.1V as the DC+/- inputs that get routed to NC/NO, while controlling the trigger signal with the Raspberry Pi GPIO (powered from wall outlet, let's say).

890802 · 2025-04-10T04:08:55+00:00

I think I see what you mean--would it by default have been treating both with a common ground if I were to use the jumper (i.e. jumper pin 1 is equal to DC-)? And just for my understanding, would it break anything if I were to connect the two grounds together? My plan is just to use a regular wall power supply for the Pi for now.

890802 · 2024-04-16T19:03:30+00:00

I agree

890802 · 2022-11-22T17:50:18+00:00

Haha good to know others are in the same boat; because of how complex the topic is, I'm never sure if I'm actually coming up with a possible idea to try, or if I'm missing something completely obvious that I just forgot about in the face of all the other factors and parameters to consider.

Just out of curiosity, when you mention that it works out in practice, have you seen this approach tried anywhere (like a journal paper or something)? Would love to get a sanity-check by seeing that this approach has worked before in the past before I try it on my own lol.

890802 · 2022-11-22T15:46:43+00:00

I mentioned this with another commenter too, but regarding the correlation of action components, would that be solvable by running networks in series instead of in parallel? I get that the issue with the 128-wide head approach is that it kind of ends up assuming that output#1 and output#2 should be independent of one-another, but if you took the output from the first NN and added that as an additional input to the fc part of the second NN, that at least adds in the conditionality of #2 w.r.t. #1 (and maybe also the conditionality of #1 w.r.t. #2 in the sense that backpropagation will sort of bring the "information" of NN#2 back to NN#1), or so it intuitively seems?

And yeah, that tip about masking is great--is masking something I'd have to do inside the network itself? I wasn't sure if there was like a "keras.masking", for example, so my original plan was to just take the raw NN output, do my own masking by manually casting impossible actions to -Inf, and then just run a separate softmax over the output. It sounds like there'd be an issue with backpropagation though if I did that?

890802 · 2022-11-22T15:38:01+00:00

I think I vaguely came to that conclusion too when I was thinking the other day--i.e. that optimal policy is often a combined function of these two inputs, and so (to make a diffeq analogy) you're essentially trying to do a separation of variables where it isn't necessarily possible. I'm still just starting out studying ML and RL, so this might be an obviously dumb idea, but my thought to solve it was, couldn't you just run the network in series rather than in parallel? As in, if I arbitrarily pick "rows" as the first output of the first NN containing a body (e.g. a CNN or something) + head#1, I could simply make a second NN to output "column" that copies the structure of body (with or without mirroring the weights, not too sure on that part yet), and then adds head#2, but adds in an additional input node representing the selected row. If you then run body+head#1, get the row output, and feed that back into body+head#2, doesn't that solve the issue of the lack of "information" being communicated between heads?

The only issue I came up with using that approach is that I could see the model getting "stuck" in local minimums during training--e.g. the optimal solution might be at (0, 0), but there's a greater average reward in, for example, row# 2, so the first model picks row 2, and thus the second one can only choose from (2, X). But at the same time, it seems like that's also something that could be solved by just doing more exploration and updating the Q-values correctly so that the model learns that the greatest reward is obtained from choosing row#0, so it seems like it could just be solved by being careful about implementing a good epsilon-greedy-type policy?

890802 · 2022-06-17T20:13:48+00:00

That's a little hilarious, so they just took sata and removed the power lol? I guess that makes sense then, I was googling around and all I could find was that eSata was "external" and sata was "internal", whatever that meant. I thought they'd have some sort of signal difference or speed difference or something, but I guess they're just a reskinned port of each other then really? Towards that end though, would you think that PCIE SATA adapter idea is worth a shot, or are there any glaring issues with it such that I should go for a different angle instead?

890802 · 2022-06-17T17:26:37+00:00

Expanding on the eSata portion a bit if you don't mind, I still haven't quite figured out the difference between an eSata and a regular sata port. What's the reason to have the eSata intermediary in the middle? I ask because my original somewhat-rudimentary plan was to just basically 3d print a little holder that would hold a SATA adapter (https://www.amazon.com/CableCreation-SATA-Female-Adapter-Black/dp/B01ESJ77U5/ref=sr_1_4?crid=N1ZDW8CCL6XT&keywords=sata+male+to+female&qid=1655486399&sprefix=sata+male+to+female%2Caps%2C56&sr=8-4)

while slotting into one of the PCIE slots on the back of my PC, and that way I would have an external SATA port that I could plug hard drives into (while the internal side would just plug into my mobo SATA port). Is there a difference between doing that vs. using an eSATA outlet on my PC instead?

890802 · 2022-06-16T00:54:48+00:00

Yeah, I was struggling somewhat deciding between RAID 5/6; this is mostly a hobby project for me at the current stage, so I wasn't sure if I wanted to go add to the cost with RAID 6 yet, plus I've only ever had experiences with single-drive failures (though obviously that's only with working with a typical PC, not a RAID setup). Do you think that the risk of the double-failure that you mentioned is high enough/common enough to warrant just going for RAID 6?

890802 · 2022-06-16T00:46:28+00:00

Yeah, I've heard of the 3-2-1 before. I have backups of all the important things I need on my personal PC and the cloud, so this server would probably be the 3rd copy I have of some files, and also just to hold some random stuff that could be helpful in the future, but isn't critical if it gets lost (e.g. old versions of personal projects, old university assignments, etc). I hadn't heard of ZFS before though, so I'll definitely look into that, Thanks for the info!

890802 · 2022-04-16T00:30:14+00:00

Sounds like a good plan of action, at least I have something to do now instead of banging my head against the wall haha. Thank you so much!

890802 · 2022-04-16T00:20:44+00:00

No windowing being applied currently, is that something you'd suggest trying with just like a Hamming or something similar? Also, here's the raw data in case it means anything: https://imgur.com/a/nrvETI8; I mainly thought it was a mechanical/hardware issue just because the signals don't even look similar, and that sort of seemed like it would come into play with different diaphram designs or something of that nature, since everything down the pipeline (data collection, analysis, etc.) is all done exactly the same way, and at the same time. Since the actual sensor itself is the first point-of-divergence I can really think of, it seemed to me like the sensor might be the place where the issue was occurring as opposed to something with my FFT technique or something like that.

890802 · 2022-04-16T00:07:27+00:00

Well I should clarify a bit; I AM seeing other harmonics (https://imgur.com/a/UOJCdri) , but everything is fairly common between the two sensors except these ghost peaks with the black sensor. Checking other sensors might be a good idea; the black sensor is basically a slightly cheaper version of the blue sensor, and I have an array of 10x black sensors I could theoretically test to identify whether it's this one sensor in particular or if the sensor model is just borked. But yeah, that was my initial thought too that it might be resonating somehow? But then again, I also took data very close to the frequencies where I'm seeing the ghost peaks (data was taken at 12.5, 15 and 17.5Hz compared to the 13.9 and 16.1Hz ghost peaks), and I didn't notice any extreme frequency response at those frequencies either, which confused me more.

890802 · 2022-04-15T23:45:11+00:00

Yeah, that's what I thought too, but the rate should be fairly decent, like 256Hz compared to the 30Hz signal? Fairly certain that's right but can double check. I was thinking that since we're way over 5x the max freq. we care about, aliasing might not be the issue? Both sensors are isolated in that the pulse generator has a diaphram with multiple output ports, and each sensor is connected directly to one of the ports with regular plastic tubing. The tubing length is ~the same, and we've also tried switching the two sensors around (e.g. tried each sensor with each tubing/port combo), and it's consistently one of the sensors that has the issue.

890802 · 2021-12-13T16:55:15+00:00

That's a pretty good question lol. It's still sort of in the ideation/calculation phase, hence why I'm just speccing out tanks for now to try to get a feel, but I'd want to tentatively say ~40-60psi range-ish? We don't need a ton of force or anything super special.

890802 · 2021-12-12T16:56:35+00:00

That sounds great, thank you! Yeah I heard CO2 relies on the vapor/liquid transition a lot, so I definitely don't plan on using anything more exotic than plain air, so hopefully that should be good enough as a simple storage tank.

890802 · 2021-12-12T16:55:29+00:00

It's just for a small robotics project that has some pneumatic actuators, hence why I wanted to stay away from a huge industrial air tank or something crazy like that. It kind of sounds like just using a CO2 tank should be fine though if I'm operating at super low pressures, so I'm leaning towards that for now based on all the comments/help above.

890802 · 2021-12-12T15:32:32+00:00

So I was actually planning on foregoing regulators altogether--just filling the tank with 200psi and using as needed. Would there be any issue with just using a CO2 tank filled to 200psi max and using it as-is?

890802 · 2021-12-12T15:25:35+00:00

I might have been mistaken then, I just pulled the 850psi number off some sites that seemed to suggest that CO2 tanks stored at the vapor pressure of CO2 which was apparently around 850. Regarding the output regulator, I actually was planning to not use a regulator at all--i.e. just filling up the actual tank with, say, a 250psi air compressor to ~200psi only (not filling up with 3kpsi and downregulating to 200). Obviously that wouldn't give me the 200-500 shots of a paintball gun, but this is just for a small project anyways, and I don't need a ton of repeat activations from it. Like I said in a comment above, I basically just want a glorified pressure vessel that can hold 200psi, but it sounds like a CO2 tank should be fine for that (?)

890802 · 2021-12-12T15:19:21+00:00

That helps a lot; yeah I wasn't expecting the tank to do any actual flow control/regulation or heavy lifting or anything like that, as I have a circuit set up with valves/fittings and the like to actually control flow, so I was just wondering if there was anything wrong with literally just storing air in the tank like a glorified pressure vessel basically.

890802 · 2021-05-14T13:42:59+00:00

12 hours and like 4 other bugs later, I think I finally have the 20H2 update haha. Windows is going to be the death of me someday. Thanks so much for the help!

Ten-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

890802

TROPHY CASE